Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 30/60/90 bucketing, per-Location labelled output, the blank-location fallback rule, and the fact that unreachable locations are reported as skipped rather than failing the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and bucketing are front-loaded in one line, then the location caveats follow. It is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter analytics tool; the location paragraph is dense but each sentence (fallback, labelling, skipping, ID scoping) carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the location dimension well. However, with zero schema documentation, four of six parameters remain opaque, which is a meaningful gap for a tool whose entire job is scoping by property/portfolio/location.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents `location` thoroughly (ID, CSV list, "all", blank default behavior) and clarifies `within_days`, but `portfolio`, `shortname`, `property_id` and `property_ids` are left entirely undescribed, including how they interact with `location`.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (leases) and a precise scope (expiring within `within_days`, bucketed 30/60/90), which tells an agent exactly what it returns. It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings like `analyze_renewals` or `list_leases`, leaving that distinction to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The location handling section is genuinely instructive ('pass that Location when you filter by one', 'see list_locations'), but that is parameter guidance rather than tool selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over `analyze_renewals` or `list_leases`, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose line.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.